This afternoon the Natick Democratic Town Committee hosted a forum featuring John Kerry on the subject of the Iraq war. It presented an opportunity for citizens to question the Senator on his positions regarding the war, withdrawal, and what happens next. And a lively forum it was, too. I’ve posted a blow-by-blow of the forum on MetroLeft.
In summary, Kerry presented very compelling arguments for what we need to do next: Begin a withdrawal and provide the support and resources for Iraqi politicians to start making real choices and take responsibility for their nation. As long as we are there, we are a handy scapegoat for them and a reason not to really do anything.
Kerry heavily promoted the idea of a regional conference involving all the stakeholders (not just the national governments) about what the stakes actually are, and what we can do about it. Negotiation, he argued, would be the key to solving the problem, which cannot be solved militarily.
It seems unlikely that the current administration will do anything of the kind, though… they’ve had many opportunities to step up to the plate, and have not yet done so, politically and diplomatically. So the question of what comes next is still wide open.
John Kerry’s appearance in Natick, MA, sponsored by the Democratic Town Committee (16 June 2007), was an eye-opener into the mediocrity that passes for leadership in America. As the senator walked on the stage, I found myself feeling compassionate. Except for the hairdo, he’s not imposing at all, and he displayed the typical body language of someone feeling nervous and out of place; in the old days, he might have been described as a sad sack.
<
p>
Kerry was introduced by the Committee Chair as having “made a mistake” when he voted in 2002 to authorize Bush/Cheney to use military force against Iraq. The excuse for this “mistake” is that he was “misled by lies and deceptions.” I have already criticized this notion of mistake and apology. What was interesting yesterday was that the senator depended on his host to make the pitch, apparently hoping to avoid having to talk about it himself. This introduction dissipated my compassion.
<
p>
The most revealing aspect of Kerry’s presentation was that he repeatedly forgot his “mistake” and “excuse.” For example, he said, “We liberated Iraq”; how can that be if that the invasion was based on lies and deceptions? He said, “Our troops have done their job”; how can that be if the “job” was a lie and a deception? In a number of other instances, Kerry’s comments indicated he is committed to the continuing presence of American military in Iraq. He argued for a “smart war,” and suggested specific troop deployments that would allow American occupation to go forward with less danger to the troops. This latter comment provoked cries of outrage from the audience, including “There is no ‘smart’ war,” and “We don’t want any war,” and “Humanity is committing suicide with war.”
<
p>
Kerry actually offers two competing explanations for his 2002 vote. One is the “mistake” excuse. That one is unconvincing. Many millions of Americans, including other senators who voted against the authorization of force, knew then what we know now about the lies and deceptions. Kerry can’t pretend he didn’t know what Senator Kennedy knew and what Senator Graham insisted upon: the National Intelligence Estimate Report showed the lies and deceptions. Kerry also can’t hide what he did in relation to his vote, seeking pollster guidance about how his vote would affect his status as a presidential candidate. Kerry’s primary opponent, Ed O’Reilly, who was in the audience yesterday, is challenging Kerry’s vote as not a mistake, but a calculated move.
<
p>
Kerry offers a second, competing explanation for his vote in 2002: he says the text of the authorization resolution contained language about negotiation, and that his vote in favor of the use of force was also a vote to negotiate first. This explanation completely contradicts the notion of a “mistake,” by suggesting that Kerry was really in support of the actual authorization resolution after all. Which is it? Mistake or intentional participation in the Bush/Cheney scenario? It can’t be both.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, Kerry is still making mistakes. He referred to “a lack of understanding of what is at stake,” but he doesn’t seem to understand that himself. He spoke of “how important it is to have the moral high ground,” but the only thing he is doing in that way is his attempt to avoid the deep stain of his 2002 vote to allow the invasion. And that isn’t working.
<
p>
My guess, after sitting through the whole Natick event, is that Kerry is a militarist and an interventionist and that he will continue to support an American military approach to the mid-east (and probably elsewhere), while obfuscating his position in an effort to retain his seat as a senator from Massachusetts. The reactions of the audience at Natick show that many people are seeing through the obfuscation and are ready for a new senator.
I don’t remember him saying “We liberated Iraq” or “our troops have done their job,” but in either event I think you’re introducing this piece in a very misleading way. As someone who has taken part in actually planning Town Meetings before, the introductory speaker in my case planner her own little speech. I highly doubt Kerry planned it so he wouldn’t have to talk about his mistake – especially given the fact that he did throughout the entire presentation, such as when he talked about how he regretted losing the Presidency because of the asinine things President Bush has done. Now, if you want to talk about a lousy leader, there’s your man.
<
p>
Kerry isn’t perfect and there are things I’d wish he would have done that he didn’t, but he has no control over the party and can’t make them – for example – stand up to Bush and give the President no money if the President refuses to accept a timeline. That wasn’t Kerry’s fault, that was the fault of people like Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid and the other DINOs in the building. His 2002 vote was a mistake and the price he paid was steep.
<
p>
Kerry is most certainly not a militarist and most certainly not advocating for a continued American presence in Iraq. He wants our troops out and has consistently voted that way since his loss at Presidency. You’re ignoring a lot of truth and not explaining any of your conclusions in trying to paint a different picture. Facts are an annoying thing, aren’t they, eh?
In response to your post let’s talk about Facts:
<
p>
Fact–The most important vote of this generation was the vote to use military action in Iraq;
<
p>
Fact–John Kerry voted with 48 Republican Senators to authorize military action in Iraq;
<
p>
Fact–John Kerry was running for President at the time of this vote and wanted to win the Democratic Nomination;
<
p>
Fact–John Kerry either failed as a long time member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to see there were no weapons of mass destruction or he voted for military action based upon promoting his own political career;
<
p>
Fact–Robert Shrum, Mr. Kerry’s chief campaign strategist in the 2004 Presidential Campaign has written a new book and in it stated that Mr. Kerry based his vote to use military action in Iraq upon the fact that he would have no chance to win the Democratic nomination or the general election according to polls. Shrum says John Kerry knew the vote was wrong. Mr. Shrum also states that Senator Kennedy tried to talk Mr. Kerry out of voting for the use of military force.
<
p>
Fact–There was no steep price Mr. Kerry paid for his vote to authorize military force;
<
p>
Fact–Our troops and their families have paid the steep price;
<
p>
Fact–John Kerry had $15m left in the Presidential Campaign Fund when he lost the election;
<
p>
Fact–I have asked Mr. Kerry to donate the entire $15m to charitable veterans groups;
<
p>
Fact–John Kerry has not given the entire amount to charitable veterans’ groups;
<
p>
Fact–John Kerry paid himself back the money he lent the campaign which was $6.4m
<
p>
Fact–As you do now, I formerly supported John Kerry–for decades;
<
p>
Fact–In 2002, I started to view John Kerry by his actions rather than his words;
<
p>
Fact–I supported Howard Dean who showed the courage of convictions in standing up against military action in Iraq
<
p>
Fact–Actions speak louder than words;
<
p>
Fact–Giving to Charitable Veterans’ groups is an Action;
<
p>
Fact–The vote to authorize military force in Iraq was an Action;
<
p>
Fact–John Kerry continues to use words;
<
p>
Thank you and I hope you are enjoying this wonderful weekend.
<
p>
Ed O’Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from, and for, Massachusetts
Please don’t presume to think that everyone agrees. The statement is arrogant and off-putting.
Are you dissenting? Do you dissent with every post as your caption indicates?
<
p>
I actually forgot that caption was there. I really should say old face which would be more accurate in a literal translation.
<
p>
I was using face as a synonym to “look”. I think John Kerry’s image of flip flopping on nearly every issue embarrassed not only the Democratic Party, but the entire state of Massachusetts whom he represents. I hope my candidacy, as a person with conviction, will change that “look” or “face”.
<
p>
We have never met, but I noticed that you are a big fan of Mr. Kerry’s as all of your posts would indicate.
<
p>
I have been called a lot of things, but arrogant is not one of them. I was born in Boston, lived in a housing project, worked myself through college and law school. I worked as a firefighter in three different communities. I was a CPR instructor. I have had people die in my arms. I have saved people’s lives. You don’t find too many people in this type of profession who are arrogant.
<
p>
Also, a big part of my life has been devoted to helping people in recovery.
<
p>
Is this constructive criticism you are giving? Are you trying to help even though you are a supporter of Mr. Kerry’s?
<
p>
If so, can you be a little more gentle with your words?
<
p>
If we met, you might say I was funny or crazy as I have heard many times, but I doubt you would say arrogant.
<
p>
I hope you had a chance to enjoy this beautiful weather.
<
p>
Thank you.
<
p>
Ed O’Reilly
Not the same old face
You are right, they were not constructive. The phrase just hit me the wrong way and I wrote without thinking. I do need to be more gentle with my words, and I am very sorry.
<
p>
karen
If Ed is serious about running, he can’t go saying “please be more gentle with your words” every time someone stings him with words. He’s going to need a thick skin!
<
p>
Unless you realize this and are banking on him staying like this…ooo…that’s clever!
I’d prefer to save my more cutting remarks for criticizing policy issues.
I’d prefer to save my more cutting remarks for criticizing policy issues.
Karen, I look forward to meeting you and I really appreciate your kind words. I think we are all working to make a positive difference in the world. I know you are.
This week, I will be speaking and listening at the Wakefield (Wednesday) and Amherst (Thursday) Democratic Town Committees. Next Monday, I am in Provincetown speaking and listening. If none of these events works for you, my email is ed@edoreilly.com and perhaps we can meet at another time. I look forward to further constructive dialogue.
<
p>
If you do email me, I am open to suggestions as to a phrase. Perhaps, I should change it weekly. As someone new to blogging (one month), I’d have to look at how I put that phrase up in the first place.
<
p>
I love this weather!
<
p>
Thank you.
<
p>
Ed
That quote you use as your signature and attribute to Thomas Jefferson is incorrect.
<
p>
Please see the Jefferson Library’s web page here: http://www.monticell…
<
p>
I quote:
<
p>
We see this one fairly frequently. We are not sure where it originated, although some speculate that Howard Zinn introduced it as recently as 2002 (see http://urbanlegends….). As evidence that Jefferson probably would not have expressed such a sentiment, we offer the following (genuine) quote:
<
p>
“Political dissension is doubtless a less evil than the lethargy of despotism: but still it is a great evil, and it would be as worthy the efforts of the patriot as of the philosopher, to exclude it’s influence if possible, from social life. The good are rare enough at best. There is no reason to subdivide them by artificial lines. But whether we shall ever be able so far to perfect the principles of society as that political opinions shall, in it’s intercourse, be as inoffensive as those of philosophy, mechanics, or any other, may well be doubted.” TJ to Thomas Pinckney, 29 May 1797
As the “Committee Chair” you refer to, I have to take exception to this:
Please don’t attribute anything I said to an underlying motive by the senator or his staff.
<
p>
You are correct in guessing that avoidance of the question was the reason for including this in the intro (emphasis used in the above quote is mine), but that was MY wish. I did not have to have my intro vetted by Kerry’s staff. I did hope to avoid questions about this, because those arguments tend to go on and on with no hope of resolution (it is so clear that all of us were lied to, and Democrats were famously not just left out of the process, but SHOVED out of the process), and they don’t push the discussion forward. I think asking about the vote up in terms of the Globe story would have been perfectly legitimate, but no one asked about that.
<
p>
I think one danger in not having more opportunities to have direct interaction with our elected officials is we end up second-guessing every statement and attributing motives, usually sinister, to every action. We don’t get to speak to these officials often enough to get to know them–and by “know them” I don’t mean get buddy-buddy, but just see them speak enough to understand their body language, their facial expressions–and the MSM has not proved trustworthy. So if an official says, “My pants are white,” by the time the statement is disseminated the official is a racist who was really wearing a red skirt at the time.
<
p>
My sense of the senator (and I met him for the first time right before the program) was a decent man, frustrated by the situation in Congress and the administration, who sometimes makes mistakes. I don’t at all think him “a militarist and an interventionist”–that’s putting him in the same camp with
DarthDick Cheney.<
p>
As for
That is so off the mark. The reactions of the audience illustrated the almost soul-destroying frustration of the average person who never gets a chance to interact one-on-one with any elected official on the federal level. If you look at the story on NECN you’ll see that one of the most heated audience members says he has nothing against Kerry–he was simply there.
<
p>
I think you may have come into this forum with unrealistic expectations–I think a lot of people did. I’m not sure what they wanted from the senator. I think a lot of people were more interested in asking their question–voicing their opinion–than in hearing what Kerry had to say. And again, that reflects more on our lack of opportunity to speak to those in power than it does to selfishness or lack of perspective (though there was some of that involved as well).
Hi Karen,I am personally involved in supporting Ed O’Reilly,,( I always want to make that clear),,,I am sure you and your fellow workers worked very hard and you did a great job in getting kerry to your town (in my humble opinion he is starting to make the rounds because he now has competition in Ed O’Reilly) I’m sure you and your associates worked for weeks to get him there, I APPLAUD ALL OF YOU for your work to get kerry to appear. I understand how you would want to put a smiley face on his reception on Saturday, on Bluemassgroup ( since you probably talked to him personally, etc.) and don’t want to feel as if you let him down by blogging how it “really” went (HORRIBLE) on Saturday. I admire your “class” and the work you did,,but I just want everyone to know that this was A kerry nightmare. He caused it himself. It was supposed to be a chance to let citizens ask questions and get REAL ANSWERs,,BUT he kept delaying with long winded answers ,,without giving an answer. People were waiting for over an hour in the aisles and never got a chance to ask a question, AMAZING!! I thought I was watching a “Saturday NIght Live” skit about how a politician thinks he is fooling people with his “NON ANSWERS”. But anyways, thank you Karen for all your work and passion, it is much appreciated,,,,I hope all is well. paco
I just want to make sure a couple of things are clear:
<
p>
As I mentioned in my post above, I only met the senator about five minutes before the program started, in the green room with the head of school, the young woman who sang the national anthem, and the senator’s advance person. Nothing of consequence was talked about.
<
p>
I don’t have a stake in letting anyone down. I have a stake in reporting what I see, or interpret. I haven’t actually blogged about the forum yet in terms of my overall view of how it went; I’ve just been responding to posts that I feel either misunderstood or misinterpreted my words or my motives or tried to present as fact situations that are clearly subjective.
<
p>
Was the forum perfect? No. Did the senator sometimes give too long an answer? Yes. Do I feel he was delaying, that this was a “nightmare”? No and no. Do I think he “caused it himself”? Ultimately, I don’t think so–the ones responsible for stalling and delaying the momentum of the forum were those in the audience who for whatever reason tried to monopolize, manipulate, and pompously opine without any consideration for other audience members who wanted to ask questions. Did we have a good plan for defusing that? No.
<
p>
<
p>
I like your strikeout font in Cheney’s true name, but it doesn’t translate into the blockquote. In any case, I agree with you: Kerry is not a militarist in the sense that Cheney definitely is. Kerry doesn’t go out of his way to start wars, and he isn’t insane. My original comment was meant to point to the many occasions where Kerry has failed or refused to stand against militarism, going at least back to Kerry’s vote to give Reagan’s “contra” funding “one more chance” (as I recall he said).
<
p>
Toward the end of the Natick event, Kerry responded to someone’s assertion that we can get out of Iraq immediately, with a litany of questions: “Do you remember how long the ‘who lost China’ debate went on? And the ‘who lost Viet Nam?’ And ‘who lost Cuba?'” I was at first perplexed by this response. Then it fit into the larger pattern: Kerry may say he is anti-war, but I think a larger driving force is his fear of being painted ‘soft’ on war. The result is acquiescence in militarism.
<
p>
Thanks again for organizing the event. In light of the pent up frustration you refer to, which is deep and real across the country, I think things worked out pretty smoothly, rowdiness notwithstanding.
That’s My Take.
Were you in Natick on Saturday June 16th for kerry’s so-called “forum”? If u were,,,please give me your honest opinion of what occurred. I was there because I am personally involved with this 2008 election for the Ma. Democratic U.S. Senate Race,in favor of Ed O’Reilly . (I am just being honest and up front about it). Let me know what you honestly believe kerry brought to the table on Saturday. Thanks,,,,,,and please keep this civil, this is Democracy ( that’s not asking too much,,is it?)
when you respond to them in a manner that is frothing with unabated condescension. It makes you look stupid.
Click the link and there you have it.
<
p>
Are you really questioning whether or not I was there?
<
p>
The only people at the forum who were a disturbance were the three or four asshats who needed to be taught their manners. The police ejected one of them, who sat a few rows behind me, out. He had the annoying capacity to interrupt Senator Kerry when he was giving his 5-10 minute speech at the beginning… and never really stopped.
<
p>
Forums certainly bring out the interesting characters. Sadly, they often take away from the purpose 99% of the people have in going to those events – which is to learn about the reason for having the forum in the first place. In this case, it was Iraq.
<
p>
But, hey, don’t take My Take, ask Susan.
Yes, Kerry could have exercised more leadership in 2002 and he could perform some Great Act of Penance or Lesson One in Becoming a True Leader.
<
p>
Since early 2006, though, Kerry has demonstrated much better leadership. He was one of the few sitting Senators, for example, to campaign for Lamont actively and he has been raising money in advance for Collins’, Coleman’s, and Sununu’s opponents.
<
p>
Come to think of it . . . Wouldn’t we exit Iraq much more quickly if Senators Collins and Sununu were spending more time with their families? Wouldn’t it be a better, wiser, smarter use of this eager anti-Iraq War energy to turn those Senate seats Democratic. Note, too, that the more Democratic the Senate is, the better behaved people like Arlen Spector are. An even more Democratic Senate might even improve Lieberman’s attitude.
<
p>
So why hard work to unseat Kerry when we could work to unseat the actually odious Collins & Sununu? I don’t get it.